Continue from this paper
Indexing is not verification. Extracted statements should be checked against the source.
Abstract
The sharp lower and upper bounds of the Hermitian Toeplitz determinants of the
second and third order for certain close-to-star functions are computed.
Results & Lemmas (9)
Each result is auto-extracted from the paper via OCR - the math is shown verbatim and may carry occasional transcription artifacts. Click to expand the full statement.
Theorem 1.1
Theorem 1.1 [8] Let F be a subclass of A such that f ∈F: a2 = 0 ̸= ∅and A2(F):= max |a2|: f ∈F exists. Then, 1 −A2 2(F) ≤det T2,1( f ) ≤1.…
Theorem 1.1 [8] Let F be a subclass of A such that { f ∈F : a2 = 0} ̸= ∅and A2(F) := max{|a2| : f ∈F} exists. Then, 1 −A2 2(F) ≤det T2,1( f ) ≤1. Both inequalities are sharp. Let S∗denote the subclass of S of starlike functions, i.e., f ∈S∗if f ∈A and Re zf ′(z) f (z) > 0, z ∈D. A function f ∈A is called close-to-star if there exist g ∈S∗and β ∈R such that Re eiβ f (z) g(z) > 0, z ∈D. (1.2)
Lemma 1.2
Lemma 1.2 If p ∈P is of the form (1.6), then |cn| ≤2, n ∈N. (1.7) Moreover, c1 = 2ζ1 (1.8) and c2 = 2ζ 2 1 + 2(1 −|ζ1|2)ζ2 (1.9) for some…
Lemma 1.2 If p ∈P is of the form (1.6), then |cn| ≤2, n ∈N. (1.7) Moreover, c1 = 2ζ1 (1.8) and c2 = 2ζ 2 1 + 2(1 −|ζ1|2)ζ2 (1.9) for some ζi ∈D, i ∈{1, 2}. For ζ1 ∈T, there is a unique function p ∈P with c1 as in (1.8), namely, p(z) = 1 + ζ1z 1 −ζ1z ,
Theorem 2.1
Theorem 2.1 If f ∈F1, then −8 ≤det T2,1( f ) ≤1. Both inequalities are sharp. Now, we will compute the bounds of det T3,1( f ) in the class…
Theorem 2.1 If f ∈F1, then −8 ≤det T2,1( f ) ≤1. Both inequalities are sharp. Now, we will compute the bounds of det T3,1( f ) in the class F1.
Theorem 2.2
Theorem 2.2 If f ∈F1, then det T3,1( f ) ≤39. (2.4) The inequality is sharp.
Theorem 2.2 If f ∈F1, then det T3,1( f ) ≤39. (2.4) The inequality is sharp.
Theorem 2.3
Theorem 2.3 If f ∈F1, then det T3,1( f ) ≥1 8 6 √ 2 −15 4 + 2 √ 2 2 3 +
Theorem 2.3 If f ∈F1, then det T3,1( f ) ≥1 8 6 √ 2 −15 4 + 2 √ 2 2 3 +
Theorem 3.1
Theorem 3.1 If f ∈F2, then −8 ≤det T2,1( f ) ≤1. Both inequalities are sharp. Now, we estimate det T3,1( f ) in the class F2.
Theorem 3.1 If f ∈F2, then −8 ≤det T2,1( f ) ≤1. Both inequalities are sharp. Now, we estimate det T3,1( f ) in the class F2.
Theorem 3.2
Theorem 3.2 If f ∈F2, then det T3,1( f ) ≤48. (3.4) The inequality is sharp.
Theorem 3.2 If f ∈F2, then det T3,1( f ) ≤48. (3.4) The inequality is sharp.
Theorem 2.2
Repeated OCR label — verify against source
Theorem 2.2, the inequality (2.5) holds with the function F(x, y):= 2x2y −2x2 −y2 + 1, (x, y) ∈[0, 3] × [0, 5]. Repeating argumentation in…
Theorem 2.2, the inequality (2.5) holds with the function F(x, y) := 2x2y −2x2 −y2 + 1, (x, y) ∈[0, 3] × [0, 5] . Repeating argumentation in the in the proof of Theorem 2.2, we see that the function F does not have any relative maxima in (0, 3) × (0, 5). We consider F on the boundary of [0, 3] × [0, 5]. (1) On the side x = 0, F(0, y) = 1 −y2 ≤1, y ∈[0, 5]. (2) On the side x = 3, F(3, y) = −17 + 18y −y2 ≤F(3, 5) = 48, y ∈[0, 5]. (3) On the side y = 0, F(x, 0) = 1 −2x2 ≤1, x ∈[0, 3].
Theorem 3.3
Theorem 3.3 If f ∈F2, then det T3,1( f ) ≥−4 7
Theorem 3.3 If f ∈F2, then det T3,1( f ) ≥−4 7
Function classes studied:
Related Papers